AMD Instinct MI350X vs Intel Arc Pro B60 Comparison

The AMD Instinct MI350X and Intel Arc Pro B60 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, one designed for massive compute workloads in datacenter racks and the other a compact professional workstation card. The database records no shared benchmark entries, yet the specification sheets alone reveal a stark divergence in purpose, architecture, and measured performance class. The MI350X holds a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the Arc Pro B60 sits at the 20th percentile, a gap that reflects their differing roles rather than a simple quality judgment.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X has an average benchmark score of 0, as no benchmark entries are recorded in the database. The Intel Arc Pro B60 has an average benchmark score of 3182, with its strongest individual result being 14,580 on the Passmark G3D test.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Pro B60 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc Pro B60 sits within 3.5% of its closest competitors. It is 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 (which scores 3163), 0.9% behind the GeForce GT 640 (3210), 3.2% behind the GeForce 920M (3287), and 3.5% ahead of the GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER (3075).

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc Pro B60 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 456.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are there display outputs on either card?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X has no display outputs, as it is an OAM module intended for server installations. The Intel Arc Pro B60 provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The MI350X contains 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, while the Arc Pro B60 contains 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die. Transistor density is similar: 77.7 million per mm² for AMD versus 72.1 million per mm² for Intel.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60 boosts to 2400 MHz, while the AMD Instinct MI350X boosts to 2200 MHz. The Intel card also has a higher base clock at 2000 MHz versus 1000 MHz for the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. AMD employs CDNA 4.0, a compute-optimized design that abandons traditional graphics output entirely. Intel uses Xe2-HPG, the second-generation high-performance gaming and professional architecture that powers the Battlemage generation. The MI350X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the Arc Pro B60 belongs to the Battlemage (Pro Series) generation.

Fabrication processes diverge sharply. AMD fabricates the MI350X on a 3 nm process at TSMC, while Intel also uses TSMC but on a 5 nm node. The resulting die sizes reflect the enormous difference in scale: AMD packs 185,000 million transistors into a 2380 mm² package, whereas Intel fits 19,600 million transistors into 272 mm². Density figures are close, with AMD at 77.7 million transistors per mm² and Intel at 72.1 million per mm².

The MI350X uses the MI350 256CU chip, which translates into 16,384 shading units, 1024 texture mapping units, and no ROPs. It has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. The Arc Pro B60 uses the BMG-G21 chip with 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 80 ROPs, and 20 ray tracing cores. This structural difference indicates that the AMD card prioritizes raw parallel compute throughput, while the Intel card retains a full graphics pipeline including rasterization and ray tracing support.

Memory architecture differs completely. The MI350X relies on HBM3e stacked memory with 288 GB capacity, an 8192-bit bus width, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc Pro B60 uses discrete GDDR6 memory with 24 GB capacity, a 192-bit bus, and 456.0 GB/s bandwidth. The bandwidth ratio is approximately 18 to 1 in favor of AMD, which is typical for a compute accelerator versus a workstation graphics card.

API support highlights the specialization. The MI350X reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, confirming it is not a graphics-oriented product. The Arc Pro B60 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a functional graphics card for professional applications.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI350X delivers overwhelming compute capability. Its FP32 throughput reaches 72.09 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance matches at 72.09 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. Texture rate stands at 2,252.8 GTexel/s, while pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s because the card has no ROPs. These figures indicate the MI350X is built for dense matrix operations, AI training, and scientific simulation where graphics output is irrelevant.

The Intel Arc Pro B60 wins in every area related to conventional graphics rendering. It delivers 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 384.0 GTexel/s texture rate. FP32 performance is 12.29 TFLOPS, and FP16 doubles to 24.58 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The 20 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced workloads, a feature entirely absent from the MI350X. The four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs enable multi-monitor professional setups.

Power consumption separates the two into different deployment classes. The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W and requires a suggested 1400 W power supply. It uses an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors, meaning it receives power through the carrier board. The Arc Pro B60 has a 200 W TDP, uses a single 8-pin power connector, and requires a suggested 550 W power supply. The Intel card fits in a dual-slot form factor at 167 mm length, 69 mm height, and 40 mm width, while the AMD card measures 102 mm by 165 mm in an OAM module format.

The Arc Pro B60 is the only one of the two with a production status marked as Active. The MI350X has no production status listed. The Intel card also has a launch MSRP of 499 USD, while the AMD card has no launch MSRP recorded.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds differ notably. The MI350X runs at a 1000 MHz base clock and 2200 MHz boost. The Arc Pro B60 runs at 2000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost. Memory clocks show 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for AMD and 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective) for Intel.

Shading units: 16,384 on the MI350X versus 2,560 on the Arc Pro B60. TMUs: 1024 versus 160. ROPs: 0 versus 80. Ray tracing cores: absent on AMD, 20 on Intel. FP32 throughput: 72.09 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS. FP16 throughput: 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1).

Memory capacity: 288 GB versus 24 GB. Memory type: HBM3e versus GDDR6. Bus width: 8192 bit versus 192 bit. Bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s versus 456.0 GB/s. TDP: 1000 W versus 200 W. Power connectors: none versus 1x 8-pin. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 5.0 x8.

Release dates are three months apart: the MI350X released on 2025-06-11, and the Arc Pro B60 released on 2025-09-04. The MI350X predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, while the Arc Pro B60 has no predecessor. Neither has a successor recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results between the MI350X and the Arc Pro B60. The MI350X has zero recorded benchmark entries, and its average benchmark score is 0. The Arc Pro B60 has eight recorded benchmark scores, ranging from 61 on Passmark DirectX 10 to 14,580 on Passmark G3D.

The Arc Pro B60 scores 2,646 on 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 61 on Passmark DirectX 10, 122 on Passmark DirectX 11, 76 on Passmark DirectX 12, 179 on Passmark DirectX 9, 763 on Passmark G2D, 14,580 on Passmark G3D, and 7,029 on Passmark GPU Compute. These results place it at the 20th percentile among all GPUs.

Without shared tests, the only meaningful comparison comes from the percentile rankings. The MI350X holds the 50th percentile, which is higher than the Arc Pro B60's 20th percentile. However, the MI350X's percentile is based on no benchmark data, so this figure reflects the database's classification rather than measured performance.

The Arc Pro B60's nearest rivals provide context for its performance tier. Its average score of 3182 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 at 3163, a difference of just 0.6%. It trails the GeForce GT 640 by 0.9% and the GeForce 920M by 3.2%, while leading the GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER by 3.5%. These narrow margins show that the Arc Pro B60 competes with entry-level and older professional GPUs, not with high-end accelerators.

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI350X targets datacenter compute deployments where massive memory capacity and extreme FP32 throughput are paramount. Its 288 GB HBM3e memory with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, 72.09 TFLOPS FP32, and 16,384 shading units position it as a compute accelerator for workloads like AI training, scientific simulation, and large-scale data processing. The lack of display outputs and graphics API support confirms this role. The 1000 W TDP and OAM module form factor place it in server racks with dedicated power delivery.

The Intel Arc Pro B60 targets professional graphics workstations. Its 24 GB GDDR6 memory, 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 20 ray tracing cores support rendering, video editing, and CAD applications. The four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs enable multi-monitor setups. The 200 W TDP and dual-slot design fit standard workstation chassis, and the single 8-pin power connector works with conventional power supplies. Its 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 provide adequate compute for professional workloads without approaching the MI350X's scale.

The data shows two products with no functional overlap. The MI350X cannot output video, support graphics APIs, or fit in a standard PCIe slot as a standalone card. The Arc Pro B60 cannot match the MI350X's memory bandwidth, compute throughput, or transistor count. The 50th versus 20th percentile ranking reflects the database's categorization, but the absence of shared benchmarks means no direct performance comparison exists.

For users requiring graphics output, the Arc Pro B60 is the only viable option between the two, as it offers display connectivity, ray tracing, and full DirectX 12 Ultimate support. For users requiring maximum compute density, the MI350X provides 18 times the memory bandwidth and nearly 6 times the FP32 throughput, but demands server infrastructure. The choice rests entirely on whether the workload needs a graphics pipeline or pure computational throughput. The recorded data does not suggest either card as a substitute for the other.